is the taliban our falt?

[batboy2001]

Think about this, who gave the Aphiganistan (spelling) rebels weapons and rocket launchers to fight the Ruskies? We did, know we will be fighting the same weapons we gave them. I might ad they did pretty darn good kicking them.

[Psycho Fox]

Originally posted by batboy2001
Think about this, who gave the Aphiganistan (spelling) rebels weapons and rocket launchers to fight the Ruskies? We did, know we will be fighting the same weapons we gave them. I might ad they did pretty darn good kicking them. Well yes plus alot of terrorist ogrinization like the taliban got their power from the vacume left after the cold war ended. As one Newspaper reported said that after tuesday he would perfer the Sovit Union as our enemey anyday.

[BourgeoisBuffoon]

I hate to say yes to all that's been said, but yes. We were so anti-communist we wanted ANYTHING that wasn't communist on the seat of power. If only we had thought ahead... :( Now look where we are, attacked by people we once supported. South Vietnam and Korea were also dictatorships when we aided them, I might add.

Dunno about the Soviet Union as an enemy....I'd rather have no enemies, but I guess SU is the next best thing...

[Salvor]

The American foreign policy has always been ambiguous. Many dictatorships have been furthered and even bolstered by the American government so as to brake the growth of the Soviet Union and thus prevent the empire from thriving.

It must be aknowledged this policy is foul and has come in for a lot of criticism throughout the world lately.

[batboy2001]

The American foreign policy has always been ambiguous. Many dictatorships have been furthered and even bolstered by the American government so as to brake the growth of the Soviet Union and thus prevent the empire from thriving How very true, sad but true.

[Maxie Zeus]

Of course, two things need to be kept in mind:

1. Hindsight is always 20/20. When fighting a battle or pursuing a policy, it is not possible to foresee every possible ramification. Insofar as the US knew it was building up factions and fanatics that disliked it as much as the Soviets, it was reasonable at the time to believe that such fanatics would be confined to the mountains of Afghanistan (or, at worst, the MidEast in general) where they could do us only minimal harm.

2. Foreign policy consists largely of choosing the least bad from among many genuinely awful alternatives. During the 1930s, for instance, the Western democracies had a choice of aligning with Nazi Germany against Soviet Russia, or with Soviet Russia against Nazi Germany. In fact, considering each alternative to be immoral, they declined to choose. Result: The early part of the war was fought against a Germany that had formed an entente with Russia and actually drew material support from it. The war went very badly, and was almost lost in those early days.

There is nothing wrong with pointing out where mistakes have been made, and who made them, and from such criticism (hopefully) we can learn. But such criticism, I think, ought not to be expressed in the condescending or accusatory tones that suggest the critic would obviously have been done better at the task than those who actually executed the policies.

[Salvor]

Sure but come on, war decisions and plain economic interests are two different things. In the last two decades, the Soviet Union was no threat for the booming US and still, the American government kept to the deals with those countries.

And as far as I'm concerned, I believe the government made more than mere "mistakes", it intentionally dealt with dangerous countries regardless of the outrages such bargains might eventually give rise to.

[Vigo Sprax]

Look at Iran or Cuba, our government putting future enemies in power is nothing new...I just can't understand how a country can take all these resources, have us train them to fight the enemy, and then turn around and call us the devil.

[The Clown Prince]

Man, CHINA is an enemy we do not want to have, but something tells me that someday something will happen. Speaking of China, there was a thing on the "24 hour" network news channel the other day that said the U.S. higher up's (don't ask me who cause I don't remember) weren't sure what will happen when the U.S. will attack whoever it is there going after. And what I mean when I say they're not sure what's going to happen, I mean they're not sure if Sadam Husain will do something while the U.S. is distracted or if China will finally move in on Taiwan when the U.S. is distracted. God, can you imagine what could happen if one of those two things or even both were to happen while the U.S. is at war with whoever? It's so bad that I don't even want to think about it.

The U.S. has always said they will defend Taiwan if China does something and the U.S. is ALWASYS keeping eye on Husain, but what do you do if one or both of those things happen when you are majorly distracted with something else?

The Clown Prince

[Mr. Obsession]

I'm not to worried about China right now. Sure they may be tempted to smack Taiwan around while we're distracted, but I very highly doubt they'd want to risk all out war with the US. Sure they may have the largest army in the world, but our military is somewhere between 30 - 40 years ahead of theirs technologically. We've also got a lot more nukes than they do. Simply put, they want a war with us about as much as we want one with them.

Sadam, on the other hand, is an opportunist and I can see him getting involved if things in the Middle East get out of hand.

[Psycho Fox]

Yhea China said they are on our side. Both Militarily and the use of their airspace and land plus their bases. They are just as scarded ****less of these terrorist as we are.

[BourgeoisBuffoon]

Some people believe that we are bound to have a cold war with China eventually as we did with the Soviets...on account of it being a superpower (or becoming one), the fact that it is communist, and we have many different ideals. But I digress, they are afraid of the U.S. and they are angry at the attack as we are. It'd be a long cold war for them too...

....But at least if China became an enemy, it'd be a great problem, these guys are well-established and prepared for war. Hussain is right now in a precarious position with his government and America's anger, and an attack is THE stupidest thing he can do right now...problem is, he thinks that'd be a GREAT thing to do...

(NOTE: I am just saying an opinion...not trying to start a flame war here with China against America)

[Leaping Larry Jojo]

The problem is that China doesn't want to make enemies with ANY nations at this point...despite their recent stubborn actions. One gets the feeling that they want to "loosen up," but they also want to do it THEIR way, not how other people rush or tell them to. They're just starting to get through to the international community, and they are slowly, albeit very slowly changing their policies...

That's why while they are totally behind the fight against terrorism, they are not keen on global war. China is a rising nation again and politically, it doesn't feel like getting into an all-out war is the best option for them. China wants to slowly turn into an economic power rather than a military one. From a safety standpoint, they will stick by the U.S., and news reports state that China will probably resume talks with Taiwan very soon, which is good. Still, Taiwan is an appealing opportunity for boosted economy that is just out of reach for them. I don't subscribe to the idea that China wants Taiwan because it wants to flex its muscles or become a "One China." Gotta be something else--economy.

It may be many years before China gets locked into a cold war with whatever main superpower is in the future, because at this point, becoming an economic power first is the main priority. And by then, they might not even be a communist nation anymore. Russia dug itself a hole because it could not actually *afford* waging the arms race with the U.S., as their military power exceeded their standard of living, which China seems to want to get out of.

[Maxie Zeus]

A gentle reminder:

The rules ask that we refrain from posting on controversial topics. That rule, in the wake of Tuesday's events, is on quasi-suspension. But I'm not sure what a geopolitical discussion about China is doing here. Speculating about potential "future enemies" doesn't strike me as a fruitful topic.

[Calhoun07]

If they will be fighting back at us with weapons they got from us, all the better. We know better than anybody what to use against them then. That gives us an upper hand, if anything.

[batboy2001]

Sorry maxie, I didn't think it would get racial.

[James]

I agree with Maxie that topics of future enemies seems a little precarious. To me, the concern is rather less to do what was sold to whom in the past, and who might become a danger in the future, but how it is dealt with at the moment.

Currently, I have have not been impressed with any country's reaction to this catastrophe. Terrorism is not something that can be fought with an iron fist. Surely the problems in Northern Ireland have proven this. Neither is making brash threats that sorting this problem out will resolve terrorism for good.

News flash, while we live in a global community, terrorism will exist. While we wish to globe trot, trade, communicate, there will always be potential for terrorism. I would like to think that the one lesson that people in both Northen and Southern Ireland have learned (and those in some areas of England too) is that Terrorism has to be handled in a civillized fashion. Are lives must remain as unaffected as possible. Give the terrorists too much reaction and they have got what they have wished for. Too many leaders appear (IMO!!) to be using this for political points. I'm a little worried that too much reaction - which is proving popular in the polls of many countries is taking place over some serious thinking.

Will the military movement of the west really resolve anything? Especially when it is so unclear who is definately (and not MAYBE) the enemy truely is? Should we not be worried that such actions may be used by certain groups to play the race and religion cards? Already, the have been several uncalled for racial incidences in several countries. Could this esculate out of hand? For the sake of the polls, could this plunge us into bigger global divides?

Could we end up causing more unnecessary bloodshed? Are we a little too close to the terrible events to be deciding on all out war on an invisible enemy?

This situation isn't as simple as many political leaders are making out.... it will be interesting to see what the history books will say...

[Psycho Fox]

Originally posted by SJJ
Currently, I have have not been impressed with any country's reaction to this catastrophe. Terrorism is not something that can be fought with an iron fist. Surely the problems in Northern Ireland have proven this. Neither is making brash threats that sorting this problem out will resolve terrorism for good.

News flash, while we live in a global community, terrorism will exist. While we wish to globe trot, trade, communicate, there will always be potential for terrorism. I would like to think that the one lesson that people in both Northen and Southern Ireland have learned (and those in some areas of England too) is that Terrorism has to be handled in a civillized fashion. Are lives must remain as unaffected as possible. Give the terrorists too much reaction and they have got what they have wished for. Too many leaders appear (IMO!!) to be using this for political points. I'm a little worried that too much reaction - which is proving popular in the polls of many countries is taking place over some serious thinking.

Will the military movement of the west really resolve anything? Especially when it is so unclear who is definately (and not MAYBE) the enemy truely is? Should we not be worried that such actions may be used by certain groups to play the race and religion cards? Already, the have been several uncalled for racial incidences in several countries. Could this esculate out of hand? For the sake of the polls, could this plunge us into bigger global divides?

Could we end up causing more unnecessary bloodshed? Are we a little too close to the terrible events to be deciding on all out war on an invisible enemy?

This situation isn't as simple as many political leaders are making out.... it will be interesting to see what the history books will say... Well for the record 30 years ago in Monteral the Canadain goverment hit terrorism with a iron fist they delcared the war tine measures act tooken away people rights temporaraly but it did the job thus if you can gain control of the nation in where they are and do the same you might be able to get them out the..bit messy but effective but another move I think they should do is wait them out park our army arround the border and cut supplies into the country

[happyheathen]

those most certain of a military success seem to be those with the least experience... ummm....

I'll trot this one out:

'If you want peace, work for justice'


and this one:

since it created israel, the US has been in the business of suppressing islam - i can remember when (60's) it was considered, in the US, to be a 'gutter religion'. (i remember the phrase because i wondered what kind of a god would create a 'gutter' religion).

and we wonder why they don't like us...

[James]

Originally posted by happyheathen


since it created israel, the US has been in the business of suppressing islam - i can remember when (60's) it was considered, in the US, to be a 'gutter religion'. (i remember the phrase because i wondered what kind of a god would create a 'gutter' religion).

and we wonder why they don't like us...

I think that is a wonderfully important point. Recently, there was a US politician who when asked why islamic countries hated the US he said that is was because the US was rich and powerful.. hmm, no.... I think the hatred is less to do with jealousy and more to do with opposing conflicts of interest.

I think another vital exercise in the weeks to come is not only to come to terms with the damage made by the aggressors, but to understand a little where some of all this hatred comes from. It is too easy to 'monsterfy' aggressive actions. I'm not for a minute saying you should be able to empathise or sympathise with these people, but it is important to put them into perspective. By doing so, you can better handle you own judgement and own fears. There is no such thing as monsters. People, rightly or wrongly, have different grievences which they deal with in different ways. The many cheering faces that were in the news from countries within the Middle East will have angered many people, but these people feel they have reason to hate the US and it's allies. I for one cannot give specific answers to why there is so much hatred, but I know it isn't because they are 'monsters'.

On the day of the attack in the UK. One 'journalist' decided on the radio to remind us all that the people responsible for this attack had a very different lifestyle, that they treated their women poorly and callously, who had bizarre traditions and essentially were weird monsters. How open minded of him. Yes, there are many othodox followers of many religions whose practise would seem bizarre, but it is not for us to judge or label as the reason for the attack. Most othodox followers live a placid and normal lifestyle and the journalist may be surprised that from the women's point of view in these cultures, they'd be disgusted by the thought of living any other way. Certainly working women would be seen by many females as a disgrace. My point being once again, rather than to shock and 'monsterfy' (I use that non word again!!), we should try to understand and learn. The old spent adage that knowledge is power couldn't be more approriate. To get out of this mess, we need to understand as much about all involved as possible.

[Salvor]

Originally posted by Maxie Zeus
Speculating about potential "future enemies" doesn't strike me as a fruitful topic.
Agreed. It's bound to bring about nationalistic/ xenophobic thoughts. That discussion about China seems quite out-of-place to me.

[Psycho Fox]

Originally posted by SJJ

I think that is a wonderfully important point. Recently, there was a US politician who when asked why islamic countries hated the US he said that is was because the US was rich and powerful.. hmm, no.... I think the hatred is less to do with jealousy and more to do with opposing conflicts of interest.

I think another vital exercise in the weeks to come is not only to come to terms with the damage made by the aggressors, but to understand a little where some of all this hatred comes from. It is too easy to 'monsterfy' aggressive actions. I'm not for a minute saying you should be able to empathise or sympathise with these people, but it is important to put them into perspective. By doing so, you can better handle you own judgement and own fears. There is no such thing as monsters. People, rightly or wrongly, have different grievences which they deal with in different ways. The many cheering faces that were in the news from countries within the Middle East will have angered many people, but these people feel they have reason to hate the US and it's allies. I for one cannot give specific answers to why there is so much hatred, but I know it isn't because they are 'monsters'.The people that did plan this attack are monsters they have no soul if they did they would not have done such a inhuman barbaric act. We must punish those that did this even if they have a point or not becouse if we don't then someone else would try something even more violent just to get our attention.

[Maxie Zeus]

This isn't going anywhere healthy.